The Feasibility of Utilizing Smartphone Flashlights as an Alternative Endoscopic Light Source in Emergency Situations

Jennifer Johanna Butler, Stephen Franklin White, Calvin Wint Maung Myint, Michael William Groves

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although the image quality from modern distal chip endoscopes is superior, limited mobility of the endoscopic tower prevents this technology from being used in inpatient and emergency departments. In these settings, otolaryngologists commonly use older flexible laryngoscopes with portable light sources. However, these light sources could malfunction. Smartphones are ubiquitous nowadays, and the smartphone’s flashlight may be used alternatively to provide illumination when primary light malfunctions. This study compares the ability of flashlights from various smartphone models in providing adequate illumination for flexible laryngoscopy when compared to a commercially available portable light source. White wall and mucosal images were captured using Olympus P4 flexible scope and lights from the Stryker X8000 endoscopy tower light source, Storz 11301D3 portable light source (control), iPhone 4, iPhone 6, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Galaxy S6, and Galaxy S7. ImageJ was used to quantify pixel intensities with white and black standardized as 250 and 0, respectively. Student 2-tailed t test was used for analysis. The endoscopic tower outperformed all other light sources in all categories. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 6 consistently underperformed in comparison to the Storz 11301D3 portable light source (P <.05). Galaxy S6, Galaxy S7, and newer generation iPhone 8 and iPhone X provide comparable pixel intensities to Storz 11301D3 portable light. Smartphones incorporate different types of light-emitting diodes. Newer Galaxy and iPhone provide adequate illumination for the endoscopic assessment of the airway when compared to commercially available portable light source. However, one should always utilize the best commercially available light source in nonemergent cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalEar, Nose and Throat Journal
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Emergencies
Light
Galaxies
Lighting
ethyl-2-methylthio-4-methyl-5-pyrimidine carboxylate
S 6
Smartphone
Laryngoscopes
Laryngoscopy
Endoscopes
Endoscopy
Hospital Emergency Service
Inpatients
Students
Technology

Keywords

  • iPhone
  • laryngoscope
  • portable light source
  • Samsung Galaxy
  • smartphone

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

The Feasibility of Utilizing Smartphone Flashlights as an Alternative Endoscopic Light Source in Emergency Situations. / Butler, Jennifer Johanna; White, Stephen Franklin; Myint, Calvin Wint Maung; Groves, Michael William.

In: Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{701ea769c88a49f79a831f9d0ef50cad,
title = "The Feasibility of Utilizing Smartphone Flashlights as an Alternative Endoscopic Light Source in Emergency Situations",
abstract = "Although the image quality from modern distal chip endoscopes is superior, limited mobility of the endoscopic tower prevents this technology from being used in inpatient and emergency departments. In these settings, otolaryngologists commonly use older flexible laryngoscopes with portable light sources. However, these light sources could malfunction. Smartphones are ubiquitous nowadays, and the smartphone’s flashlight may be used alternatively to provide illumination when primary light malfunctions. This study compares the ability of flashlights from various smartphone models in providing adequate illumination for flexible laryngoscopy when compared to a commercially available portable light source. White wall and mucosal images were captured using Olympus P4 flexible scope and lights from the Stryker X8000 endoscopy tower light source, Storz 11301D3 portable light source (control), iPhone 4, iPhone 6, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Galaxy S6, and Galaxy S7. ImageJ was used to quantify pixel intensities with white and black standardized as 250 and 0, respectively. Student 2-tailed t test was used for analysis. The endoscopic tower outperformed all other light sources in all categories. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 6 consistently underperformed in comparison to the Storz 11301D3 portable light source (P <.05). Galaxy S6, Galaxy S7, and newer generation iPhone 8 and iPhone X provide comparable pixel intensities to Storz 11301D3 portable light. Smartphones incorporate different types of light-emitting diodes. Newer Galaxy and iPhone provide adequate illumination for the endoscopic assessment of the airway when compared to commercially available portable light source. However, one should always utilize the best commercially available light source in nonemergent cases.",
keywords = "iPhone, laryngoscope, portable light source, Samsung Galaxy, smartphone",
author = "Butler, {Jennifer Johanna} and White, {Stephen Franklin} and Myint, {Calvin Wint Maung} and Groves, {Michael William}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0145561319862212",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Ear, Nose and Throat Journal",
issn = "0145-5613",
publisher = "Medquest Communications LLC",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Feasibility of Utilizing Smartphone Flashlights as an Alternative Endoscopic Light Source in Emergency Situations

AU - Butler, Jennifer Johanna

AU - White, Stephen Franklin

AU - Myint, Calvin Wint Maung

AU - Groves, Michael William

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Although the image quality from modern distal chip endoscopes is superior, limited mobility of the endoscopic tower prevents this technology from being used in inpatient and emergency departments. In these settings, otolaryngologists commonly use older flexible laryngoscopes with portable light sources. However, these light sources could malfunction. Smartphones are ubiquitous nowadays, and the smartphone’s flashlight may be used alternatively to provide illumination when primary light malfunctions. This study compares the ability of flashlights from various smartphone models in providing adequate illumination for flexible laryngoscopy when compared to a commercially available portable light source. White wall and mucosal images were captured using Olympus P4 flexible scope and lights from the Stryker X8000 endoscopy tower light source, Storz 11301D3 portable light source (control), iPhone 4, iPhone 6, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Galaxy S6, and Galaxy S7. ImageJ was used to quantify pixel intensities with white and black standardized as 250 and 0, respectively. Student 2-tailed t test was used for analysis. The endoscopic tower outperformed all other light sources in all categories. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 6 consistently underperformed in comparison to the Storz 11301D3 portable light source (P <.05). Galaxy S6, Galaxy S7, and newer generation iPhone 8 and iPhone X provide comparable pixel intensities to Storz 11301D3 portable light. Smartphones incorporate different types of light-emitting diodes. Newer Galaxy and iPhone provide adequate illumination for the endoscopic assessment of the airway when compared to commercially available portable light source. However, one should always utilize the best commercially available light source in nonemergent cases.

AB - Although the image quality from modern distal chip endoscopes is superior, limited mobility of the endoscopic tower prevents this technology from being used in inpatient and emergency departments. In these settings, otolaryngologists commonly use older flexible laryngoscopes with portable light sources. However, these light sources could malfunction. Smartphones are ubiquitous nowadays, and the smartphone’s flashlight may be used alternatively to provide illumination when primary light malfunctions. This study compares the ability of flashlights from various smartphone models in providing adequate illumination for flexible laryngoscopy when compared to a commercially available portable light source. White wall and mucosal images were captured using Olympus P4 flexible scope and lights from the Stryker X8000 endoscopy tower light source, Storz 11301D3 portable light source (control), iPhone 4, iPhone 6, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Galaxy S6, and Galaxy S7. ImageJ was used to quantify pixel intensities with white and black standardized as 250 and 0, respectively. Student 2-tailed t test was used for analysis. The endoscopic tower outperformed all other light sources in all categories. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 6 consistently underperformed in comparison to the Storz 11301D3 portable light source (P <.05). Galaxy S6, Galaxy S7, and newer generation iPhone 8 and iPhone X provide comparable pixel intensities to Storz 11301D3 portable light. Smartphones incorporate different types of light-emitting diodes. Newer Galaxy and iPhone provide adequate illumination for the endoscopic assessment of the airway when compared to commercially available portable light source. However, one should always utilize the best commercially available light source in nonemergent cases.

KW - iPhone

KW - laryngoscope

KW - portable light source

KW - Samsung Galaxy

KW - smartphone

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070303739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070303739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0145561319862212

DO - 10.1177/0145561319862212

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85070303739

JO - Ear, Nose and Throat Journal

JF - Ear, Nose and Throat Journal

SN - 0145-5613

ER -